Well, in TVs, it's not a TRUE 120Hz rate, mind you. It's simply 60Hz (or more likely 24Hz with a 2/3 pull down for broadcasts and most movies) with interpolated frames in between each frame to give you that 120Hz. If you play games with a 120Hz monitor, on the other hand, you will actually be getting the full 120Hz of frames (assuming your framerates go up that high). However, the reason why everything on the TV looks almost unreal is because we're so used to watching films and whatnot playing at 24 frames per second, which is the reason why The Hobbit in high frame rate (which was actually just 48 frames per second) looked like everything was popping out. In games, unfortunately, you will not see this kind of difference because most of the time you will be playing with (ideally) 60 frames per second or higher. It would only be useful for those extremely high twitch games where you need every single frame rate to count so that you can aim very precisely -- but the average casual gamer will not see much of a difference IMO.

PS: this is just my opinion, not hard fact. Some people may actually see a difference with the 120Hz monitor -- I, on the other hand, do not see much of a difference.

Is a 120HZ better? Yes by quite a large margin, anyone who says otherwise probably has very friggin bad frame rate recognition.Will it change your world? no not really, because 60FPS is enough for most people to play games on.

A 120hZ monitor is mainly for people who value play-ability over all else. The games will be smoother and they will be more responsive and aiming will be more seamless. The game might even look more realistic (depending on the quality of the animations), But it's not really going to be a big mind blowing experience and make your mind flip or anything. It's just a general all around improvement to the play-ability and animations in the game.

Is a 120HZ better? Yes by quite a large margin, anyone who says otherwise probably has very friggin bad frame rate recognition.Will it change your world? no not really, because 60FPS is enough for most people to play games on.

A 120hZ monitor is mainly for people who value play-ability over all else. The games will be smoother and they will be more responsive and aiming will be more seamless. The game might even look more realistic (depending on the quality of the animations), But it's not really going to be a big mind blowing experience and make your mind flip or anything. It's just a general all around improvement to the play-ability and animations in the game.

But the problem that 120hz faces is that you need a good enough computer to get at least marginally above 60 fps to make it worth while. And especially if you are like me and love to crank up every setting you can, most likely you won't.

i've seen a lot of 120hz monitors but none really look good enough to buy yet. and another thing that stops me is many games I have only run 60-100fps at most, i rarely see games hit 120fps or more unless i have the details turned down, or if the game doesnt cpu bound itself.

i wouldnt bother with 120hz... and maybe wait to see if nvidias gsync tech turns out to be as good as they say. Its supposed to match the framerate to the refresh rate to make it almost blur and tear free compared to more primative vsync and adaptive sync methods. i havent really looked into it much but it could turn out to be a slow tech to get into cause you have to buy a whole brand new monitor for it.

i've seen a lot of 120hz monitors but none really look good enough to buy yet. and another thing that stops me is many games I have only run 60-100fps at most, i rarely see games hit 120fps or more unless i have the details turned down, or if the game doesnt cpu bound itself.

i wouldnt bother with 120hz... and maybe wait to see if nvidias gsync tech turns out to be as good as they say. Its supposed to match the framerate to the refresh rate to make it almost blur and tear free compared to more primative vsync and adaptive sync methods. i havent really looked into it much but it could turn out to be a slow tech to get into cause you have to buy a whole brand new monitor for it.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

i have an overclocked ips 236v @71hz and it nowhere compares to my 120hz 950d no matter the framerate

Well, in TVs, it's not a TRUE 120Hz rate, mind you. It's simply 60Hz (or more likely 24Hz with a 2/3 pull down for broadcasts and most movies) with interpolated frames in between each frame to give you that 120Hz. If you play games with a 120Hz monitor, on the other hand, you will actually be getting the full 120Hz of frames (assuming your framerates go up that high). However, the reason why everything on the TV looks almost unreal is because we're so used to watching films and whatnot playing at 24 frames per second, which is the reason why The Hobbit in high frame rate (which was actually just 48 frames per second) looked like everything was popping out. In games, unfortunately, you will not see this kind of difference because most of the time you will be playing with (ideally) 60 frames per second or higher. It would only be useful for those extremely high twitch games where you need every single frame rate to count so that you can aim very precisely -- but the average casual gamer will not see much of a difference IMO.

PS: this is just my opinion, not hard fact. Some people may actually see a difference with the 120Hz monitor -- I, on the other hand, do not see much of a difference.

Obviously isn't fact because its wrong. Im guessing you did some copy/pasting.

On a tv the only time 120hz is not a 120hz is when its some companies proprietary software where they can somehow figure out they make 60hz 120hz without it actually being 120hz. They usually call it something on the box like "super clear motion".

But yes there is a difference, and anyone who sees the difference between true 60hz and 120hz knows the difference. Anything about 120hz there is no difference because at that point its skewing numbers just for the sake of having higher ones on the box to seem more awesome to uncouth customers, kind of like contrast ration wars.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

i have an overclocked ips 236v @71hz and it nowhere compares to my 120hz 950d no matter the framerate

You compared two different types of panels. Of course its not the same the response time on ips screens a lot longer than TN, if you run games at 70 fps on a 70 hz tn panel or a 120hz tn panel they look the same period.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

i have an overclocked ips 236v @71hz and it nowhere compares to my 120hz 950d no matter the framerate

You compared two different types of panels. Of course its not the same the response time on ips screens a lot longer than TN, if you run games at 70 fps on a 70 hz tn panel or a 120hz tn panel they look the same period.

Well according to your logic if a game is running at 60fps then suddenly the panel stops being 120hz? nonsense obviously.... The monitor is still refreshing at 120HZ even when the game is running at 60fps. So there is still improved smoothness and response.

120 FPS on 120HZ Monitor

120 frames of animation a second = 120FPS (120HZ)

The monitor is showing twice as many unique frames than 60fps.

60 FPS on 120HZ Monitor

60 Frames of animation a second + 60 of the same frames of animation a second = 60FPS of the same animation doubled for (120HZ)

Shows the same frames as 60HZ but because the monitor is refreshing at twice the speed of 60HZ it repeats the frames in the same time frame . This would have the effect of reduced input delay, increased smoothness and reduced screen tearing.

60 FPS on 60HZ monitor

60 Frames of animation = 60FPS (60HZ)

__________________

A 120HZ panel is still a 120HZ panel without regard to what speed the software is running at, the monitor still does its job and refreshes at 120HZ. And it's not difficult to land 120FPS on 90% of the games out there. It might just mean turning down a setting or two and having the benefits of double the amount of unique frames posted onto the screen.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

i have an overclocked ips 236v @71hz and it nowhere compares to my 120hz 950d no matter the framerate

You compared two different types of panels. Of course its not the same the response time on ips screens a lot longer than TN, if you run games at 70 fps on a 70 hz tn panel or a 120hz tn panel they look the same period.

Well i have both panels, you don't. And the response time honestly doesnt matter. I rack up the same kills on 35ms as i do on 1ms. shows what you know. no offense

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

i have an overclocked ips 236v @71hz and it nowhere compares to my 120hz 950d no matter the framerate

You compared two different types of panels. Of course its not the same the response time on ips screens a lot longer than TN, if you run games at 70 fps on a 70 hz tn panel or a 120hz tn panel they look the same period.

Well i have both panels, you don't. And the response time honestly doesnt matter. I rack up the same kills on 35ms as i do on 1ms. shows what you know. no offense

Even though I recognize the benefit of a faster response time (and smoother animation at 120 FPS), I agree that it's stretching more into the realms of diminishing returns - trying to buy a monitor to improve your gaming ability. There's only so much that uber low latency helps compared to other monitors which are already pretty low latency.

After spending time with an expensive, professionally ISF calibrated IPS monitor - you'll want to throw everything else in the trash. I've seen 120hz IPS-panel variations being sold on Ebay (trying to capture the best of both worlds), but I can't attest to their quality.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Doesn't matter if they don't reach the whole 120fps, the 120Hz monitors still look better for gaming and just general use.

this this this

Yes but in general even with the top of the line cards when playing games maxed out you may get 65-70 FPS average? in which case you can take a 60 hz panel and usually overclock it to around 70hz sometimes more.

i have an overclocked ips 236v @71hz and it nowhere compares to my 120hz 950d no matter the framerate

You compared two different types of panels. Of course its not the same the response time on ips screens a lot longer than TN, if you run games at 70 fps on a 70 hz tn panel or a 120hz tn panel they look the same period.

Well i have both panels, you don't. And the response time honestly doesnt matter. I rack up the same kills on 35ms as i do on 1ms. shows what you know. no offense

Even though I recognize the benefit of a faster response time (and smoother animation at 120 FPS), I agree that it's stretching more into the realms of diminishing returns - trying to buy a monitor to improve your gaming ability. There's only so much that uber low latency helps compared to other monitors which are already pretty low latency.

After spending time with an expensive, professionally ISF calibrated IPS monitor - you'll want to throw everything else in the trash. I've seen 120hz IPS-panel variations being sold on Ebay (trying to capture the best of both worlds), but I can't attest to their quality.

I have never seen those isf calibrated monitors. I can almost take your word for it that theyre better than anything ive seen.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel, would demolish your monitor in terms of color reproduction, viewing angle capabilities, contrast, black levels, etc. - in terms of things that actually matter in IQ. Refresh rate isn't even a factor of image quality.

Hate to break it to you but you didn't pay a high price for image quality, you paid a high price for a big screen with fast refresh rates (and mediocre 3d capabilities). You're stuck with a cheaper TN panel - and TN panels are famous for poor color reproduction, poor contrast, poor viewing angles (which means it can effectively enjoyed by the person in front of it), etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of image-quality, your monitor is probably near a 4/10, whereas that Ultrasharp I linked is a solid 7/10.

You may have done your research, but I figure you didn't spend enough time doing it or you did it in the wrong places - such as this forum, which has only a couple of knowledgeable A/V people (more knowledgeable than me at least). I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but it's common knowledge in the monitor world that even the most expensive TN panels often pale in comparison the lower-end IPS panels. Most TN panels are just older, less expensive tech.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel, would demolish your monitor in terms of color reproduction, viewing angle capabilities, contrast, black levels, etc. - in terms of things that actually matter in IQ. Refresh rate isn't even a factor of image quality.

Hate to break it to you but you didn't pay a high price for image quality, you paid a high price for a big screen with fast refresh rates (and mediocre 3d capabilities). You're stuck with a cheaper TN panel - and TN panels are famous for poor color reproduction, poor contrast, poor viewing angles (which means it can effectively enjoyed by the person in front of it), etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of image-quality, your monitor is probably near a 4/10, whereas that Ultrasharp I linked is a solid 7/10.

You may have done your research, but I figure you didn't spend enough time doing it or you did it in the wrong places - such as this forum, which has only a couple of knowledgeable A/V people (more knowledgeable than me at least). I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but it's common knowledge in the monitor world that even the most expensive TN panels often pale in comparison the lower-end IPS panels. Most TN panels are just older, less expensive tech.

Sure, but your not just looking at images on your panel, your going to be looking at animations. Refresh rate is a HUGE factor in animation quality. Audio/videophiles won't care about 120hz because their content rarely comes in 60fps and even more rarely in 120fps, so they would NEVER see the benefits of higher framerates anyway. However, with games, we CAN get our content at higher than 24fps.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to disregard refresh rate altogether is quite foolish. Especially with the 'image quality' premise. We don't just see images in our games, our eyes perceive motion, and refresh rate is the number one factor in our perception of motion.

So to whatever idiot said that 60fps on a 60hz panel and 60fps on a 120hz panel is different is frankly an idiot.

ok so pretend I count to 6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

now assuming the same I count to 6 doubled.

1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6,

Ok so tell me whats different?

Oh wait the same number was written twice correct? That is what your screen is doing. I said for gaming. no matter what if your computer is outputting 70 fps that's all your going to see, you are going to see 70 frames every second. Even if your monitor is 120hz you are still only going to see 70 unique frames. The onlytime a 120hz panel is superior is when you can either produce above the amount a overclocked 60hz can handle, 3d, or if you really care how smooth your windows desktop runs (which granted is a nice feature). I would rather pay for a nice IPS panel then pay for a 120hz tn. Again if you can actually run the games where it makes use of the higher refresh rate more power to you, but most cannot, at least when running newer games maxxed out.

So to whatever idiot said that 60fps on a 60hz panel and 60fps on a 120hz panel is different is frankly an idiot.

ok so pretend I count to 6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

now assuming the same I count to 6 doubled.

1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6,

Ok so tell me whats different?

Oh wait the same number was written twice correct? That is what your screen is doing. I said for gaming. no matter what if your computer is outputting 70 fps that's all your going to see, you are going to see 70 frames every second.

No, what you stated was that 70FPS on a 120hz panel and 70FPS on a 70HZ panel (your own words) "looks the same period"..

@IvanElk said:

if you run games at 70 fps on a 70 hz tn panel or a 120hz tn panel they look the same period.

@IvanElk said: The onlytime a 120hz panel is superior is when you can either produce above the amount a overclocked 60hz can handle

And this is where you're wrong. Even at 60 FPS and even under 60fps, a 120HZ monitor will still produce less inherent monitor flicker and smoother animations because each frame is drawn twice. if the game is running at 40FPS each frame will be drawn three times. A 60HZ monitor running a game at 40FPS will not even be able to draw all the frames twice let alone three times.

Then there's the added benefits of using a 120HZ monitor with Vsync enabled at 60FPS... This is information I already knew but I've quoted it from TweakGuides.com.

"There is however a more fundamental problem with enabling VSync, and that is it can significantly reduce your overall framerate, often dropping your FPS to exactly 50% of the refresh rate. This is a difficult concept to explain, but it just has to do with timing. When VSync is enabled, your graphics card becomes a slave to your monitor. If at any time your FPS falls just below your refresh rate, each frame starts taking your graphics card longer to draw than the time it takes for your monitor to refresh itself. So every 2nd refresh, your graphics card just misses completing a new whole frame in time. This means that both its primary and secondary frame buffers are filled, it has nowhere to put any new information, so it has to sit idle and wait for the next refresh to come around before it can unload its recently completed frame, and start work on a new one in the newly cleared secondary buffer. This results in exactly half the framerate of the refresh rate whenever your FPS falls below the refresh rate."

So yep there's more added benefits to a 120HZ monitor when gaming at 60FPS. Half of 120 is?.. that's right 60. So what this means is that a user who is playing a video game on a 120HZ monitor at 60FPS can turn on Vsync with no adverse side effects because half of 120 is 60 and so the game will always maintain 60fps.

A user who is using a 60HZ monitor and is playing a game at 60FPS with Vsync will have to maintain a frame rate close to 60FPS at all times otherwise the frame rate could instantly be cut by 50%, which means the game will stutter down to 30FPS. The only solution is to use Triple Buffering. But Triple Buffering introduces more input delay because it's doing what its name suggests and buffering additional frames to be used.

At over 60FPS, a 120HZ monitor will start to introduce new frames of animation which couldn't be seen at 60HZ. But seeing new frames of animation is not the only aspect which attracts buyers to 120HZ monitors. Overall performance regardless of the frame rate is also a consideration. The panels work better on the windows desktop, they work better in software packages such as Photoshop (for people who use a drawing tablet). They still produce smoother animations with less screen tearing and ghosting in video games which aren't running at the full blown 120 FPS. Even if the game is running at 80FPS instead of 60FPS the player is still seeing more frames of animation and have better overall performance. They can produce 3D visuals and overall they're better monitors than 60HZ. Especially for anyone dealing in gaming and competitive gaming then 120HZ regardless of framerate, have better performance all around. And you should probably stop posting until you have an inkling about what the f*** you're talking about.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel, would demolish your monitor in terms of color reproduction, viewing angle capabilities, contrast, black levels, etc. - in terms of things that actually matter in IQ. Refresh rate isn't even a factor of image quality.

Hate to break it to you but you didn't pay a high price for image quality, you paid a high price for a big screen with fast refresh rates (and mediocre 3d capabilities). You're stuck with a cheaper TN panel - and TN panels are famous for poor color reproduction, poor contrast, poor viewing angles (which means it can effectively enjoyed by the person in front of it), etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of image-quality, your monitor is probably near a 4/10, whereas that Ultrasharp I linked is a solid 7/10.

You may have done your research, but I figure you didn't spend enough time doing it or you did it in the wrong places - such as this forum, which has only a couple of knowledgeable A/V people (more knowledgeable than me at least). I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but it's common knowledge in the monitor world that even the most expensive TN panels often pale in comparison the lower-end IPS panels. Most TN panels are just older, less expensive tech.

Sure, but your not just looking at images on your panel, your going to be looking at animations. Refresh rate is a HUGE factor in animation quality. Audio/videophiles won't care about 120hz because their content rarely comes in 60fps and even more rarely in 120fps, so they would NEVER see the benefits of higher framerates anyway. However, with games, we CAN get our content at higher than 24fps.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to disregard refresh rate altogether is quite foolish. Especially with the 'image quality' premise. We don't just see images in our games, our eyes perceive motion, and refresh rate is the number one factor in our perception of motion.

As long as it's images we're looking at, the quality of the image is most important. The refresh rate of the image easily comes 2nd. How many people here even play Crysis 3 maxed at 120 FPS? AC4 maxed at 120 FPS? DayZ at 120 FPS? Does anyone here actually play any modern games with modern graphics at 120 FPS at max settings? I doubt any of you are even seeing the benefits of your refresh rates in the scenario's that actually matter the most. The only person here who actually benefits from it is JigglyWiggly because he plays older games (or ugly Tribes). But only because he's an uber competitive FPS enthusiast. I don't think any one else here quite qualifies.

Remember when The Hobbit hit theaters at double the FPS/refresh rate? Remember how that was deemed a gimmick and a failure? It certainly didn't make its appearance with Desolation of Smaug. Similar to how audiences perceived 48 FPS with the hobbit - higher refresh rates is a bit of a gimmick to me at the moment. A beautiful picture with relatively deep blacks and rich, accurate colors on the other hand impresses me a lot. No way in hell I'd sacrifice my image quality for more frames. I'd gladly pay more for the addition of 120hz, but never if it comes at a major cost of image quality. I think you'd have to be straight crazy to think the image quality doesn't matter as longer as it's 120hz.

To most people (including myself), it looks weird at best. Better? Slightly, in certain aspects. It doesn't actually make anything look better...just motion. 60 FPS isn't exactly sluggish. Would 120hz be more responsive and better for Quake 3? No doubt. I don't spend the majority of my time playing twitch-FPS games. I do spend the majority of my time looking at images, playing modern-looking games at max settings, and watching video content. I'd never be able to appreciate any good gfx, images, or videos on a lower quality TN panel though. The difference between most TN panels and an IPS panel really is night and day.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel, would demolish your monitor in terms of color reproduction, viewing angle capabilities, contrast, black levels, etc. - in terms of things that actually matter in IQ. Refresh rate isn't even a factor of image quality.

Hate to break it to you but you didn't pay a high price for image quality, you paid a high price for a big screen with fast refresh rates (and mediocre 3d capabilities). You're stuck with a cheaper TN panel - and TN panels are famous for poor color reproduction, poor contrast, poor viewing angles (which means it can effectively enjoyed by the person in front of it), etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of image-quality, your monitor is probably near a 4/10, whereas that Ultrasharp I linked is a solid 7/10.

You may have done your research, but I figure you didn't spend enough time doing it or you did it in the wrong places - such as this forum, which has only a couple of knowledgeable A/V people (more knowledgeable than me at least). I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but it's common knowledge in the monitor world that even the most expensive TN panels often pale in comparison the lower-end IPS panels. Most TN panels are just older, less expensive tech.

Sure, but your not just looking at images on your panel, your going to be looking at animations. Refresh rate is a HUGE factor in animation quality. Audio/videophiles won't care about 120hz because their content rarely comes in 60fps and even more rarely in 120fps, so they would NEVER see the benefits of higher framerates anyway. However, with games, we CAN get our content at higher than 24fps.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to disregard refresh rate altogether is quite foolish. Especially with the 'image quality' premise. We don't just see images in our games, our eyes perceive motion, and refresh rate is the number one factor in our perception of motion.

As long as it's images we're looking at, the quality of the image is most important. The refresh rate of the image easily comes 2nd. How many people here even play Crysis 3 maxed at 120 FPS? AC4 maxed at 120 FPS? DayZ at 120 FPS? Does anyone here actually play any modern games with modern graphics at 120 FPS at max settings? I doubt any of you are even seeing the benefits of your refresh rates in the scenario's that actually matter the most. The only person here who actually benefits from it is JigglyWiggly because he plays older games (or ugly Tribes). But only because he's an uber competitive FPS enthusiast. I don't think any one else here quite qualifies.

Remember when The Hobbit hit theaters at double the FPS/refresh rate? Remember how that was deemed a gimmick and a failure? It certainly didn't make its appearance with Desolation of Smaug. Similar to how audiences perceived 48 FPS with the hobbit - higher refresh rates is a bit of a gimmick to me at the moment. A beautiful picture with relatively deep blacks and rich, accurate colors on the other hand impresses me a lot. No way in hell I'd sacrifice my image quality for more frames. I'd gladly pay more for the addition of 120hz, but never if it comes at a major cost of image quality. I think you'd have to be straight crazy to think the image quality doesn't matter as longer as it's 120hz.

To most people (including myself), it looks weird at best. Better? Slightly, in certain aspects. It doesn't actually make anything look better...just motion. 60 FPS isn't exactly sluggish. Would 120hz be more responsive and better for Quake 3? No doubt. I don't spend the majority of my time playing twitch-FPS games. I do spend the majority of my time looking at images, playing modern-looking games at max settings, and watching video content. I'd never be able to appreciate any good gfx, images, or videos on a lower quality TN panel though. The difference between most TN panels and an IPS panel really is night and day.

You can't use your personal preference to justify refresh rates. I never said one is better than the other. I simply am saying refresh rate is important. Also I thought the hobbit looked better and I had a better viewing experience because of the higher fps.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel, would demolish your monitor in terms of color reproduction, viewing angle capabilities, contrast, black levels, etc. - in terms of things that actually matter in IQ. Refresh rate isn't even a factor of image quality.

Hate to break it to you but you didn't pay a high price for image quality, you paid a high price for a big screen with fast refresh rates (and mediocre 3d capabilities). You're stuck with a cheaper TN panel - and TN panels are famous for poor color reproduction, poor contrast, poor viewing angles (which means it can effectively enjoyed by the person in front of it), etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of image-quality, your monitor is probably near a 4/10, whereas that Ultrasharp I linked is a solid 7/10.

You may have done your research, but I figure you didn't spend enough time doing it or you did it in the wrong places - such as this forum, which has only a couple of knowledgeable A/V people (more knowledgeable than me at least). I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but it's common knowledge in the monitor world that even the most expensive TN panels often pale in comparison the lower-end IPS panels. Most TN panels are just older, less expensive tech.

Sure, but your not just looking at images on your panel, your going to be looking at animations. Refresh rate is a HUGE factor in animation quality. Audio/videophiles won't care about 120hz because their content rarely comes in 60fps and even more rarely in 120fps, so they would NEVER see the benefits of higher framerates anyway. However, with games, we CAN get our content at higher than 24fps.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to disregard refresh rate altogether is quite foolish. Especially with the 'image quality' premise. We don't just see images in our games, our eyes perceive motion, and refresh rate is the number one factor in our perception of motion.

As long as it's images we're looking at, the quality of the image is most important. The refresh rate of the image easily comes 2nd. How many people here even play Crysis 3 maxed at 120 FPS? AC4 maxed at 120 FPS? DayZ at 120 FPS? Does anyone here actually play any modern games with modern graphics at 120 FPS at max settings? I doubt any of you are even seeing the benefits of your refresh rates in the scenario's that actually matter the most. The only person here who actually benefits from it is JigglyWiggly because he plays older games (or ugly Tribes). But only because he's an uber competitive FPS enthusiast. I don't think any one else here quite qualifies.

Remember when The Hobbit hit theaters at double the FPS/refresh rate? Remember how that was deemed a gimmick and a failure? It certainly didn't make its appearance with Desolation of Smaug. Similar to how audiences perceived 48 FPS with the hobbit - higher refresh rates is a bit of a gimmick to me at the moment. A beautiful picture with relatively deep blacks and rich, accurate colors on the other hand impresses me a lot. No way in hell I'd sacrifice my image quality for more frames. I'd gladly pay for more the addition of 120hz, but never if it comes at a major cost of image quality.

It looks weird at best. Better? Eh. It doesn't actually make anything look better. 60 FPS isn't exactly sluggish neither. Is it more responsive and better for Quake 3? No doubt. I'd never be able to appreciate any good gfx, images, or videos on a lower quality TN panel though. The difference between most TN panels and an IPS panel really is night and day.

Do you even own a 120HZ monitor? you shouldn't have an opinion on the matter unless you've used both types of monitors (60hz and 120HZ) extensively. I can tell you don't have a 120HZ monitor because you seem to think the quality of an image is more important than the quality of an image in motion. Which is would be true if we this was a forum discussing still images. But this is a video game forum and that alone speaks volumes about your experience with 120HZ monitors. .

Second of all you seem to think 120FPS is some impossible task to achieve. Anyone who owns a 120HZ Monitor knows this is a bad excuse. Even the single 680 GTX which I own can run the majority of games at 120 FPS, and the ones which have trouble reaching 120FPS, it's typically down to one or two settings such as tessellation which can be turned off and make little difference to the image quality when compared to 120FPS vs 60FPS. What about the people running SLI/Crossfire or the latest video cards, titans 780s? etc..

You then compare gaming on a 120HZ monitor to watching the hobbit at 48FPS... Do everyone a favour and just stop posting, you're just spreading stupidity.

For me, it's just about better graphics. Games look better on better looking monitors, and the best looking monitors just happen to all be 60hz. Same for movies, television, etc.

Not necessarily.

I have the Samsung SA950 120hz Monitor and it's one of the best looking monitors on the market, for both gaming, movies and general office work.

A friend bought the ASUS VG278H 120Hz Monitor and it too looks amazing and much better than most 60hz monitor.

In PC land everything will eventually go 120Hz, and not just for gaming. Office use is much better on these monitors since the windows move and draw smoother so less eye strain.

I had my doubts about going 120Hz, but once you buy a good monitor on that rate, it's impossible to go back to 60hz.

According to who? You? One of the least knowledgeable people on tech in the PC forum? No offense, but it's true. You've been here forever and you still don't seem to know many basic things about PC software/hardware (like mouse acceleration).

What about actual videophiles? Any videophiles attest to this? Any in-depth reviews explaining its color precision?

From what I can see, the monitor is 2 years old and isn't even reviewed by any reputable A/V sites, let alone any reputable videophiles. If the monitor was any good, at all, whatsoever, A/V nerds would be singing its praises all over the net. Taking a quick look at the panel, I don't see any significant improvements than any other 60hz TN panel in terms of IQ. Which means there are $250 monitors right now, that are 60hz, and would absolutely slay your monitor in IQ. You paid twice as much for twice the refresh rate, but unfortunately you're stuck with a lesser quality TN panel.

Yes, me, me and my eyes.

I can go as far as to say this Samsung is the best looking monitor for games I have ever used. On top of the 120hz the colours are just beautiful and the panel is top quality (hence the higher price).

And IQ? really? it's not just about IQ, show me a $250 60hz monitor that will "slay" as you say my monitor (protip: you won't be able to). There might be monitors that look just as good, I don't deny that, but slay? hardly. I do a lot of research before purchasing something.

As for the refresh rate, if you're a gamer you have to go either 120Hz or 144Hz these days... buying a 60hz monitor for gaming is wrong unless you're on a tight budget.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel, would demolish your monitor in terms of color reproduction, viewing angle capabilities, contrast, black levels, etc. - in terms of things that actually matter in IQ. Refresh rate isn't even a factor of image quality.

Hate to break it to you but you didn't pay a high price for image quality, you paid a high price for a big screen with fast refresh rates (and mediocre 3d capabilities). You're stuck with a cheaper TN panel - and TN panels are famous for poor color reproduction, poor contrast, poor viewing angles (which means it can effectively enjoyed by the person in front of it), etc. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of image-quality, your monitor is probably near a 4/10, whereas that Ultrasharp I linked is a solid 7/10.

You may have done your research, but I figure you didn't spend enough time doing it or you did it in the wrong places - such as this forum, which has only a couple of knowledgeable A/V people (more knowledgeable than me at least). I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but it's common knowledge in the monitor world that even the most expensive TN panels often pale in comparison the lower-end IPS panels. Most TN panels are just older, less expensive tech.

Sure, but your not just looking at images on your panel, your going to be looking at animations. Refresh rate is a HUGE factor in animation quality. Audio/videophiles won't care about 120hz because their content rarely comes in 60fps and even more rarely in 120fps, so they would NEVER see the benefits of higher framerates anyway. However, with games, we CAN get our content at higher than 24fps.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to disregard refresh rate altogether is quite foolish. Especially with the 'image quality' premise. We don't just see images in our games, our eyes perceive motion, and refresh rate is the number one factor in our perception of motion.

As long as it's images we're looking at, the quality of the image is most important. The refresh rate of the image easily comes 2nd. How many people here even play Crysis 3 maxed at 120 FPS? AC4 maxed at 120 FPS? DayZ at 120 FPS? Does anyone here actually play any modern games with modern graphics at 120 FPS at max settings? I doubt any of you are even seeing the benefits of your refresh rates in the scenario's that actually matter the most. The only person here who actually benefits from it is JigglyWiggly because he plays older games (or ugly Tribes). But only because he's an uber competitive FPS enthusiast. I don't think any one else here quite qualifies.

Remember when The Hobbit hit theaters at double the FPS/refresh rate? Remember how that was deemed a gimmick and a failure? It certainly didn't make its appearance with Desolation of Smaug. Similar to how audiences perceived 48 FPS with the hobbit - higher refresh rates is a bit of a gimmick to me at the moment. A beautiful picture with relatively deep blacks and rich, accurate colors on the other hand impresses me a lot. No way in hell I'd sacrifice my image quality for more frames. I'd gladly pay for more the addition of 120hz, but never if it comes at a major cost of image quality.

It looks weird at best. Better? Eh. It doesn't actually make anything look better. 60 FPS isn't exactly sluggish neither. Is it more responsive and better for Quake 3? No doubt. I'd never be able to appreciate any good gfx, images, or videos on a lower quality TN panel though. The difference between most TN panels and an IPS panel really is night and day.

Do you even own a 120HZ monitor? you shouldn't have an opinion on the matter unless you've used both types of monitors (60hz and 120HZ) extensively. I can tell you don't have a 120HZ monitor because you seem to think the quality of an image is more important than the quality of an image in motion. Which is would be true if we this was a forum discussing still images. But this is a video game forum and that alone speaks volumes about your experience with 120HZ monitors. .

Second of all you seem to think 120FPS is some impossible task to achieve. Anyone who owns a 120HZ Monitor knows this is a bad excuse. Even the single 680 GTX which I own can run the majority of games at 120 FPS, and the ones which have trouble reaching 120FPS, it's typically down to one or two settings such as tessellation which can be turned off and make little difference to the image quality when compared to 120FPS vs 60FPS. What about the people running SLI/Crossfire or the latest video cards, titans 780s? etc..

You then compare gaming on a 120HZ monitor to watching the hobbit at 48FPS... Do everyone a favour and just stop posting, you're just spreading stupidity.

120hz is double the refresh rate of most monitors, 48FPS Hobbit is double the frames of all 24FPS movies. You really can't make a connection between practically identical cases? :lol:

General audience isn't woo'd by more frames, and I'm part of that general audience. Can your PC run Crysis 3 at 120 FPS, Max settings? If not, I would not be satisfied with your setup in the least...because your experience is completely limited by the poor panel. 120hz isn't worth making so many sacrifices for, really. I'd be annoyed having to keep my rig always completely up to date so I can always play the most modern games at 120Hz. Turn off tessellation? Are you kidding me? You pay all this money just to play your games on an ugly screen with your graphics turned down?

My friend owns a 120Hz monitor and I've seen it hundreds of times and have played games on it. Do I win the argument now?

Really, I'm done arguing about it. It's certainly a preference. The majority of 120Hz monitors floating around are TN panels, and unless I can get my hands on a really nice 120Hz IPS panel, I won't hop on board yet. I really love good IQ, so my preference is to get good IQ before I get 120Hz. I honestly am not in the mood to have to craft my gaming experience around this 120Hz stipulation. I like to play my games maxed, and I don't feel like 60FPS is a hindrance to my experience in the least, but for some of you it appears to be. To some people, inaccurate colors and poor contrast isn't a hindrance to them, but it is to me. It goes either way, depending on what you're looking for from your PC. My preference simply carries from my what I look for in televisions (which doesn't include 120Hz gaming because TV's aren't made for that).

120hz is double the refresh rate of most monitors, 48FPS Hobbit is double the frames of all 24FPS movies. You really can't make a connection between practically identical cases? :lol:

General audience isn't woo'd by more frames, and I'm part of that general audience. Can your PC run Crysis 3 at 120 FPS, Max settings? If not, I would not be satisfied with your setup in the least...because your experience is completely limited by the poor panel. 120hz isn't worth making so many sacrifices for, really. I'd be annoyed having to keep my rig always completely up to date so I can always play the most modern games at 120Hz. Turn off tessellation? Are you kidding me? You pay all this money just to play your games on an ugly screen with your graphics turned down?

My friend owns a 120Hz monitor and I've seen it hundreds of times and have played games on it. Do I win the argument now?

Watching a film at 48FPS has no correlation to controlling a video game at 120FPS. Zero.. I can happily watch films at 24 fps (PAL) but that doesn't mean I want to control a video game at 24 FPS. Knowing someone who owns a 120HZ monitor means nothing. Until you've actually sunk your own money into both a good 60HZ and also a good 120HZ panel you cannot make a unbiased comparison.

As for "Can your PC run Crysis 3 at 120 FPS, Max settings? If not, I would not be satisfied with your setup in the least...because your experience is completely limited by the poor panel.".

I don't want to run Crysis 3 at 120FPS, I don't actually want to play the game at all because it's not that good. This is probably the worse argument anyone could put forward against 120HZ monitors.

And if you can't afford to keep your rig up to date then obviously don't buy a 120HZ Monitor. Stay with your four year out of date PC and your IPS panel playing games at 40FPS. Yes 120HZ is for the big boys and not for kids. But again the monitor does provide benefits under 60FPS as well (such as less screen flicker and improved latency), improved desktop fluidity, improved application fluidity and web browsing. So either way you look at it your argument is poor. 120HZ is 120HZ regardless of the framerate of the game and the rig it is under. It will always be a monitor which has twice the HZ of a 60HZ Monitor and that means it will always have the ability for twice the performance.

120hz also means less screen tearing, at any framerate. You don't need 120fps to get the benefits from 120hz panels.

Higher framerates give better gameplay, I'd love one for many of the games I play. Games like CS, Killing Floor, anything on an older engine like source will easily run over 60fps even maxed out and be much smoother with a 120hz panel. Why would you even bring up Crysis 3, it's a terrible game.

Also I watched the first Hobbit in 48fps and loved it, I wish all films used it - 24fps is terrible and takes me 20 mins to adjust to that juddering in panning shots.

120hz is double the refresh rate of most monitors, 48FPS Hobbit is double the frames of all 24FPS movies. You really can't make a connection between practically identical cases? :lol:

General audience isn't woo'd by more frames, and I'm part of that general audience. Can your PC run Crysis 3 at 120 FPS, Max settings? If not, I would not be satisfied with your setup in the least...because your experience is completely limited by the poor panel. 120hz isn't worth making so many sacrifices for, really. I'd be annoyed having to keep my rig always completely up to date so I can always play the most modern games at 120Hz. Turn off tessellation? Are you kidding me? You pay all this money just to play your games on an ugly screen with your graphics turned down?

My friend owns a 120Hz monitor and I've seen it hundreds of times and have played games on it. Do I win the argument now?

Watching a film at 48FPS has no correlation to controlling a video game at 120FPS. Zero.. I can happily watch films at 24 fps (PAL) but that doesn't mean I want to control a video game at 24 FPS. Knowing someone who owns a 120HZ monitor means nothing. Until you've actually sunk your own money into both a good 60HZ and also a good 120HZ panel you cannot make a unbiased comparison.

As for "Can your PC run Crysis 3 at 120 FPS, Max settings? If not, I would not be satisfied with your setup in the least...because your experience is completely limited by the poor panel.".

I don't want to run Crysis 3 at 120FPS, I don't actually want to play the game at all because it's not that good. This is probably the worse argument anyone could put forward against 120HZ monitors.

And if you can't afford to keep your rig up to date then obviously don't buy a 120HZ Monitor. Stay with your four year out of date PC and your IPS panel playing games at 40FPS. Yes 120HZ is for the big boys and not for kids. But again the monitor does provide benefits under 60FPS as well (such as less screen flicker and improved latency), improved desktop fluidity, improved application fluidity and web browsing. So either way you look at it your argument is poor. 120HZ is 120HZ regardless of the framerate of the game and the rig it is under. It will always be a monitor which has twice the HZ of a 60HZ Monitor and that means it will always have the ability for twice the performance.

But my point i was trying to make is that the concept of paying so much more, for such a slight advantage when most computers can't take advantage of it is POINTLESS. If you want to argue well some people have the money, well some people have the money for 4k doesn't make it any less stupid to attempt to game on (haven't had experiences with them but I have heard they are pretty rough around the edges when it comes to the gaming experience). So you pay an extra 100$ on a 120hz panel (maybe more haven't really checked prices)? For a feature that you can't take full advantage of unless you spend shit tons more on your computer? Or you can buy a nice image quality panel and at least then you can take advantage of it with no further investing in your computer.

Either way to each their own, I don't think it is worth it, so who cares?

Also, I have had experience with 120hz and also competive gamers DO NOT use 120hz panels in-fact MLG is still using BenQ 60hz monitors, unless by competive you mean plays online games and is good.

Anyway money for better monitors can be utilized elsewhere, the extra features are mearly a luxury that honestly does very little to enhance gameplay.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel,

Did you just compare my TN monitor to an IPS monitor?

Of course an IPS panel is going to have better colour representation, duh x 100. But I'm talking about gaming here. The Samsung I have is one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors on the market, same as the ASUS 120 and the BenQ 120.

Just because you don't have one don't go around saying it's not worth it for gaming, you seem to do that with everything you own. If you have it, it's the best, if you don't, it's not worth it and anyone that buys it is an idiot.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel,

Did you just compare my TN monitor to an IPS monitor?

Of course an IPS panel is going to have better colour representation, duh x 100. But I'm talking about gaming here. The Samsung I have is one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors on the market, same as the ASUS 120 and the BenQ 120.

Just because you don't have one don't go around saying it's not worth it for gaming, you seem to do that with everything you own. If you have it, it's the best, if you don't, it's not worth it and anyone that buys it is an idiot.

I'm talking about gaming too. I won't argue with you, I'm sure it is one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors on the market. I'm just trying to say that if you don't care that much about refresh rate, and care more about the quality of the picture - how good it looks in terms of everything - I would never recommend a TN panel. TN panels aren't very good in the grand scheme of viewing devices. A significantly uglier picture is a significantly uglier picture no matter how much more smooth the motion is. I'd like to see my games through a beautiful picture, not a smooth ugly picture. I recommend gamers who prefer good image quality to smooth motion to avoid 120hz monitors. There is no reason gaming has to be about crappy image quality.

Just because I don't own something doesn't mean I can't judge it - I've seen 120hz in motion many times. I've made my decision to not buy 120Hz monitors based on that judgment. And no, I'm not like that at all - I only talk negative about things I've tried - otherwise I won't pretend to know anything about it.

Took one second. One of my monitor's (Ultrasharp 2412M going for $260), with an e-IPS panel,

Did you just compare my TN monitor to an IPS monitor?

Of course an IPS panel is going to have better colour representation, duh x 100. But I'm talking about gaming here. The Samsung I have is one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors on the market, same as the ASUS 120 and the BenQ 120.

Just because you don't have one don't go around saying it's not worth it for gaming, you seem to do that with everything you own. If you have it, it's the best, if you don't, it's not worth it and anyone that buys it is an idiot.

I'm talking about gaming too. I won't argue with you, I'm sure it is one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors on the market. I'm just trying to say that if you don't care that much about refresh rate, and care more about the quality of the picture - how good it looks in terms of everything - I would never recommend a TN panel. TN panels aren't very good in the grand scheme of viewing devices. A significantly uglier picture is a significantly uglier picture no matter how much more smooth the motion is. I'd like to see my games through a beautiful picture, not a smooth ugly picture. I recommend gamers who prefer good image quality to smooth motion to avoid 120hz monitors. There is no reason gaming has to be about crappy image quality.

Just because I don't own something doesn't mean I can't judge it - I've seen 120hz in motion many times. I've made my decision to not buy 120Hz monitors based on that judgment. And no, I'm not like that at all - I only talk negative about things I've tried - otherwise I won't pretend to know anything about it.

Well have you tried gaming on the Samsung I have? Believe me, there is no crappy image quality like you seem to believe.

It depends about models and quality, not about TN or IPS. I've gamed on some IPS panels that look worse than a TN panel, believe it or not.

The arguments agiainst 120HZ here are poor. How is better colour representation in a video game more beneficial than more fluid animations and better response and gameplay. Less screen tearing and the benefit of using V-Sync without triple buffering, and the capability for 3D. 3D capabilities can be used for movies as well and not just gaming. 120HZ monitors are overall great Performance monitors with many benefits over 60HZ.

I If you prefer an IPS panel fair enough, each to their own. The problem here though is that a select few have come into the thread with an opinion and stated it as fact with a bunch of sub-par arguments. ie;

"you have to own a good PC to play games at 120FPS"

what is wrong with owning a good PC, why is this a negative? just because it costs money? I mean if you're serious about gaming you probably have a decent gaming PC in the first place.There's also plenty (almost too many) games on the PC which are not demanding and don't require a beast PC to hit 120fps. The monitors will still work well when not utilizing 120fps.

"TN panels have poor colour representation"

"TN panels have bad contrast"...

It's all b.s really. The benQ I own has great contrast and pretty good colour representation when setup properly. And to be honest viewing angles are the first thing I would look for when buying a TV which will be viewed from a couch but probably the last thing on the list when purchasing a single monitor which will be used on a computer desk. I'm sitting looking at a monitor straight on, why does it matter what it looks like from a left or right or up/down angle..